4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Štip.
5. The applicant worked in Stopanska Banka A.D. Skopje (“the Bank”). On 10 March 1997 she was dismissed under, inter alia, section 19-a of the Restructuring Act of some of the banks in the Republic of Macedonia (“the Restructuring Act”). A redundancy allowance (испратнина) was paid to her.
6. On 22 April 1997 the applicant challenged her dismissal before the Štip Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) alleging non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Labour Act (“Act”) (Закон за работните односи). She further claimed that section 19-a of the Restructuring Act had been discriminatory and accordingly, unconstitutional.
7. None of the five hearings listed before the first-instance court was adjourned at the applicant’s request. During the proceedings, the applicant specified her claim on three occasions. On 27 March 1998 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the Restructuring Act, as the lex specialis, had suspended the application of the Labour Act. It further stated that an appeal against that decision could be lodged within eight days of its service on the party concerned.
8.  On 2 June 1998 the applicant appealed (her notice of appeal ran to twenty-five pages). She requested, inter alia, the Court of Appeal to hold a public hearing for the purpose of providing her representative with an opportunity to elucidate the grounds of the appeal.
9. Following private deliberations held on 17 September 1999, the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the lower court’s decision. It reiterated that the Restructuring Act had indeed been lex specialis and that section 19-a, as applied in her case, had suspended the application of sections 127 and 129 of the Act. It further maintained that the eight-day time-limit for submission of the appeal had been in compliance with the Civil Proceedings Act, valid at that time. The decision was served on the applicant on 12 October 1999.
10. On 11 November 1999 the first-instance court received a detailed appeal by the applicant on points of law.
11. On 19 September 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, endorsing the reasons given by the lower courts. It further held that the Court of Appeal had provided sufficient reasons for dismissing her arguments concerning the time-limit for submission of the appeal. It also dismissed her arguments about the temporal validity of the Restructuring Act. The applicant was served with the decision on 14 November 2002.
12. On 14 January 2003 the applicant lodged with the Constitutional Court a request for the protection of human rights and freedoms (барање за заштита на слободите и правата на човекот и граѓанинот) (“the constitutional complaint”) alleging discrimination. She claimed that the Restructuring Act had been more restrictive for her, as an employee of the Bank, and that she had been put in a disadvantageous position compared to employees of other employers. Following the Constitutional Court’s request, on 27 January 2003 she clarified her application: she claimed to be a victim of the application of section 19-a of the Restructuring Act which had removed the discharge notice (отказен рок) and the criteria specified in the Act.
13. On 9 July 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, finding no discrimination: it stated, inter alia, that the Restructuring Act, as the lex specialis, had suspended the application of the Act. It also referred to its earlier decision of 23 October 1996 by which it had confirmed the constitutionality of section 19-a of the Restructuring Act. It further maintained that it did not provide supervisory review (инстанционен надзор) of the relevant decisions. On 23 July 2003 the decision was published in the Official Gazette.